Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The territories of Beni and Lubero in DRC is partly Nile basin and partly Congo basin, runs along the northeast of Virunga National Park and towards the North, the Okapi wildlife reserve, the Maiko National Park and the Tayna Nature Reserve. This area has a very high Species Range-Size Rarity and is a Key Biodiversity Area. It is not part of an Intact Forest Landscape. Virunga National Park is highlighted as top prority KBA in DRC. The area is part of the Eastern Afromonte Biodiversity hotspot.
Evidence B:exceptional global significance, including for mountain gorillas and also serves as connectivity corridor and buffer zone to Virunga National Park.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The area scores low on Irrecoverable Carbon.
Evidence B:Although the area varies, on average it appears to be above 100 t/ha
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: In the Beni and Lubero Territories, the land tenure system is characterized by a customary management system of traditional land, which involves paying an annual fee to the landowner through the vassal. Today, the traditional system of land management tends to disappear, giving way to the definitive transfer by selling of the land with as a consequence the abolition of the customary royalty. Indigenous Pygmy people and local communities live in more than half of the area’s land, but they legally own less than 10% of their territories. Pygmy indigenous peoples are recognized as the first citizens or first occupants in the DRC, but so far the management of land and forests, remains the only affair of Bantu people.
Evidence B:There is a strong focus on an Indigenous pygmy population
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The EoI explains: The survival of the indigenous pygmy peoples who have lived there since time immemorial, depends entirely on forests and of the natural resources they contain. In short, the forest is everything for the indigenous Pygmy peoples: it is their supermarket, it is their pharmacy, it is their habitat, it is sacred place, they still lead a traditional way of life.
Evidence B:The area is of exceptional importance to the local Pygmy community, particularly the dependence on forests for food and livelihoods.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The forest is under pressure: Demographic pressure of more Bantu’s looking for more fertile agricultural land and several NTFP’s such as caterpillars, mushrooms, honey, wild yams, cola nuts and many products from the pygmy pharmacopoeia, have become rare. Impoverished local communities bordering the forests engage in artisanal logging and mining in rivers. Poor governance in the environmental sector of the DRC and setting the limits of protected areas without the participation of local communities and indigenous peoples pygmies. The over-exploitation of wood resources in forests, and the dominance of the Bantu people versus the Pygmy people. Significant forest loss between 2000-2019, very high cumulative development pressure; According to Global Witness, at least 31 land defenders were killed in the DRC between 2016-2018.
Evidence B:There is moderate forest loss, but the main threat is the lack of legal recogition. This is an area of potentia forest conversion for agriculture.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The DR Congo’s legal framework provides very limited grounds for the recognition of IPLC control over forests. While there is no base for IPLC ownership of lands or other resources, a long awaited reform may address this; Some sub-national initiatives are also advancing toward the recognition and formalization of customary land rights (RRI 2020 Opportunity Framework) According to Landmark 86% of customarily-administered lands have yet to be recognized. According to EoI: Modern laws are largely prioritizing the economic interests of the state and licensed investors, as well as those of ordinary operators, to the detriment of the interests of indigenous pygmy peoples. Pygmy people are ready to dialogue and remain confident to be able to create a relationship of recognition and mutual respect with the various state, private and social actors and contributing to the application of methods of sustainable development, more respectful of the environment in all of their ancestral territories. No IPLC support highlighted in CBD Reports, but some relevant mechanisms, guidelines and legislation are under development.
Evidence B:The proposal does not well describe the enabling policy conditions. Land rights and tenure are a major issue to be addressed. DR Congo’s legal framework provides very limited grounds for the recognition of IPLC control over forests (community protected areas and concessions). This provides a major challenge.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: There appears to be some willingness in the administration to advance the recognition of IPLC control over forests. The national government has set a target of putting 2,4 Mha of forests under community management by 2023. As of 2020, it had reached half of its target. At the sub-national level, several provincial-level authorities have also expressed an interest in supporting the recognition of IPLC control over forest - especially in the provinces of Equateur, Tshuapa, North Kivu, Maniema, Kongo Central, Ituri and Haut-Katanga. (RRI 2020 Opportunity Framework and unpublished Tenure Facility report, 2018)
Evidence B:The government does not appear to be actively opposed, yet the evidence for strong support is absent.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: National policies are in the midst of change and this is gradually favorable for the promotion of the cause of local communities and indigenous Pygmy peoples. For example: the ongoing reforms around land, forestry, land use planning, mining, principles of governing agriculture are taking into account the contributions of local communities and indigenous peoples for integration in the proposals for ad hoc laws, before the last reading by the legislative body. In addition, there is a proposal for laws specific to indigenous pygmies in the DRC, which will soon be passed by deputies, then promulgated by the head of state. This includes access of indigenous pygmies to the land as well as securing it, which can be based on the decree of 2014 on the concession of the forests of the local communities (CFCL) and other regulations. The national government has set a target of putting 2,4 Mha of forests under community management by 2023. As of 2020, it had reached half of its target.
Evidence B:There are 3 successful IPLC-led conservation initaitives in the Equator Initiative database, each with a long track record, including Pygmy-led initiatives.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: The Current Co-financing Landscape identifies 11 relevant projects for in total US$ 230;2 M, including a project of US$ 6M specifically targeting Forest Dependent Community Support in DRC. The EoI mentions 4 relevant projects in the area andfurther mentions that Co-financing for this project may come from: Contributions in kind by the beneficiaries to the realization of the different activities of the projects, contributions from other projects having connections with the overall objective of this project and PREPPYG local contributions via the services rendered to this project (for carrying out activities in the field).
Evidence B:There are numerous complementary initiatives, including supported by the Rainforest Foundation, Norad and others.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The EoI covers improving sustainable livelihoods, water, sanitation and housing of Pygmy people, improving access to markets, school and health facilities, advocating for expanding their land tenure, improving peaceful coexistence with neighbouring (Bantu) communities, and reducing pressures on the forest, including reforestation activities. further it aims to promote Pygmy culture and monitor, document and advocate for cases of human rights violations.
Evidence B:The primary approach is to advance an integrated approach to support the rights and susustainable development of the Pygmy community
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The objectives are clearly divided into economic, social and environmental aspects of forest conservation and explain the related activities well.
Evidence B:There are numerous activities, but they lack an overall organizing framework and clear theory of change.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The EoI describes a very comprehensive set of activities that seem achieveable and build on existing capacity. The advocacy activities could be elaborated more.
Evidence B:The project appears well placed to overcome threats and achieve its goals. However, the metrics and indicators of success are vague.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The activities seem to be achieveable, but more info is needed on the scale of the various proposed activities.
Evidence B:This project could be completed within the range of investment and time scale.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Four projects are listed that include relevant opportunities for co-funding. Co-financing for this project may further come from: Contributions in kind by the beneficiaries to the realization of the different activities of the projects and PREPPYG local contributions via the services rendered to this project (for carrying out activities on the ground).
Evidence B:Multiple organizations are cited, buy not specifics are offered.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: improved conservation is estimated for 370,000 ha
Evidence B:The focus is on 250,000 ha
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The project aims to improve the well-being of Pygmy indigenous peoples and communities in its broad sense, which requires increasing their ability to function better in all areas. They will focus on access to everything that can fill a particular gap: employment, housing, health and education, but also, more generally, participation in decisions, security under all its forms (especially food and politics), belonging to a community, respecting rights, etc., a package of important indicators for sustainable socio-cultural development.
Evidence B:The focus of cultural and livelihood benefits is on non-timber forest products, and culutral heritage. No specific indicators are proposed however.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The beneficiaries will be supported and trained to develop their skills and self-confidence, as well as their environmental, agricultural and cultural entrepreneurship so they can continue after the project ends. A process for the gradual transfer of activities to the population, including women, will be designed from the start.
Evidence B:The project provides some evidence for longer-term benefits and sustainability. However, this section could be strengthened and clarified.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The EoI does not refer to the NBSAP or NDC, but relates the project to other policies and principles such as REDD+, agricultural, land and forestry policies as well as that of spatial planning, the African Charter on the Rights of Peoples and The universal Declaration on Human Rights.
Evidence B:This section is very weak, and non-specific.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Project activities, while globally targeting the development of all people (men and women) according to gender, taking into account social, economic, cultural and political aspects, will put more emphasis particularly on the specific aspects of pygmy women and girls, this in order to boost their fully empowered participation in sustainable leadership for their development and that of their entire society. It is not explained how this will be achieved.
Evidence B:The section is wholly inadequate.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Through its focus on training, building capacity and confidence among the Pygmy people, including women and girls, there is a high demonstrated potential for transformative results at scale.
Evidence B:Although this project has the potential of being scaled up, the project does not adequately address this.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The EoI is submitted by an NGO that includes local leaders but their role in the creation of the EoI or implementation is not clarified. The project clearly aims at building pygmy people’s capacites, including women and girls.
Evidence B:This appears to be fully led by an IPLC group.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The organization exists for 24 years, but the EoI in general only very briefly explains the experience the organization has relevant to the proposal. But the three projects mentioned demonstrate relevant experience.
Evidence B:This group has ample experience, including with major donors.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: One partner mentioned, which is not an IPLC partner; APADER , Association des Paysans pour le Développement Rural
Evidence B:There are a range of partners referenced, indicating a strong network of partnerships.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The EoI lists relevant technically qualified staff available for the project, including 4 agricultural engineers, a technician in rural development, a lawyer and a communicologist and two veterinary technicians. But it is not clarified how well they can address the root causes and barriers of the environmental problems.
Evidence B:There is no GEF experience, although they demonstrate their ability to execute funds in the past.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The EoI lists relevant management and administrative qualified staff available for the project, including a a senior technician in Management and Administration projects, and two senior technicians in accounting and finance (two women). The organization has diversified funding streams, annual external audits, but no project over $200,000,.
Evidence B:They do not have a project with more than $200k in expenditure.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Answer is no.
Evidence B:They answered no to question 28.